SINGAPORE: A lawyer linked to the criminal defamation of KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH) through a fake miscarriage story has been given the green light to be admitted to the Bar.
Mr Ariffin Iskandar Sha Ali Akbar, a 28-year-old Singaporean, was fined S$8,000 (US$6,230) by a court in August last year for defaming the hospital by publishing a false account submitted by a woman from Myanmar on the Wake Up Singapore (WUSG) website.
Mr Ariffin, who founded WUSG and is better known simply as Ariffin Sha, is a legal executive who has worked with other lawyers such as Mr Gino Hardial Singh and Mr Eugene Thuraisingam.
He was also a candidate for the Singapore Democratic Party in this year’s General Election.
According to a judgment released on Friday (Aug 8), the Attorney-General (AG) and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) had objected to Mr Ariffin’s application to be admitted to the Bar because of the KKH case.
The AG and SILE said Mr Ariffin was not “capable of being entrusted to aid in the administration of justice as an advocate and solicitor without the risk of undermining public confidence”.
Mr Ariffin was WUSG’s sole administrator at the time of the offence in March 2022, and he was convicted of criminal defamation and fined, said the AG and SILE.
OBJECTIONS BY AG, SILE
The AG argued that while the defamation offence did not involve dishonesty, it was “incompatible with the values which the legal profession stood for, namely integrity, probity and trustworthiness”.
The AG contended that Mr Ariffin was “plainly negligent in failing to verify the allegations as against KKH before publishing them”, despite knowing that doing so could harm the hospital’s reputation and cause grave public concern over the state of Singapore’s hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The AG likened Mr Ariffin’s conduct to that of Mr M Ravi, who had acted without due care when he made statements to the court which he ought to have known were untrue.
Furthermore, Mr Ariffin ought to have known the importance of ascertaining the truth before making public allegations, especially since he had worked in law firms since November 2019, said the AG.
SILE similarly submitted that the nature of the offence was relatively serious and that only a short time had passed since his conviction and punishment.
In particular, it highlighted that the offence was committed against a public hospital and had a ripple effect of spreading falsehoods about KKH, since the story was picked up by multiple news outlets and served to “erode trust” in the hospital.
The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) did not object to Mr Ariffin’s admission, saying the offence was “not one of serious gravity and did not involve any dishonesty”.
CHIEF JUSTICE’S DECISION
Both the AG and SILE, as well as LawSoc, agreed that the issue in Mr Ariffin’s case was not one that affected his character, said Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon.
Mr Ariffin had disclosed what happened when applying for admission, and all three stakeholders noted that he was “cooperative and remorseful” throughout the admissions process, noted the Chief Justice.
He said there had been no suggestion by any of the stakeholders that Mr Ariffin presented any character issue that stood in the way of his being admitted to the Bar.
“Indeed, he voluntarily disclosed his involvement in publishing the article and demonstrated remorse when the article was later retracted,” said Chief Justice Menon.
“He also showed his willingness to take responsibility for his actions. He apologised to KKH privately by email, published a retraction of the story and issued an apology to KKH on WUSG’s Facebook page. He had also assisted with police investigations and disclosed all the material facts relating to the incident. He had left his sentence in the hands of the court and paid his fine on the same day,” he said.
The Chief Justice noted that Mr Ariffin was aware that the story was a fabrication only two days after he published the article.
“The complaint that can be laid against Mr Ariffin was not that he had acted dishonestly, but rather, that he had failed to exercise due care to ascertain the veracity of the story before he published it,” said Chief Justice Menon.
He said that while what Mr Ariffin did was “wholly unsatisfactory”, this remained an offence of “a lack of care, rather than knowing falsehood or indifference to the truth”.
He also noted the positive steps taken by Mr Ariffin to re-establish his suitability for legal practice after being convicted, including supporting lawyers in pro bono and community work.
He thus found that Mr Ariffin was a fit and proper person in terms of character and that his application for admission could go ahead.
Mr Ariffin was represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Ng Yuan Siang, with Mr Jordan Tan acting as instructed counsel. According to the public hearing list, he will be called to the Bar on Aug 13.
In the same judgment allowing Mr Ariffin to be admitted to the Bar, the Chief Justice found two others to be not fit and proper for admission due to character issues.
They had committed plagiarism. He ordered their applications to be stayed for 18 months and three years, respectively, from July 2025.
In response to a request from CNA for a statement, Mr Ariffin said he was “humbled and honoured”.
“I hope to use this privilege of practice to serve the community and help those in need. I would like to thank the honourable court, the stakeholders, my lawyers from Audent Chambers and Eugene Thuraisingam, and my mentors in law. I will do my best to make them proud,” he said.
